Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bruce Fischer]

That really is a horribly offensive post. It really is quite sick that people like you could revel in possibly driving an innocent man to suicide

We should expect nothing less from Stilicho and his computer friends. After he makes a few senseless comments here, he runs back to his forum and gloats about coming here to educate all of you, hoping that his anonymous computer friends give him praise, and of course they do. There is no point in trying to reason with a person like that. I know my posts to him were a waste of time.

 

[Desert Fox]

We should expect nothing less from Stilicho and his computer friends. After he makes a few senseless comments here, he runs back to his forum and gloats about coming here to educate all of you, hoping that his anonymous computer friends give him praise, and of course they do. There is no point in trying to reason with a person like that. I know my posts to him were a waste of time.

He registered here before Meredeth was murdered.
I assume that he registered here because he is a skeptic not just interested in this issue.
What I don't understand is why he does not apply skepticism to this issue.

That means you start with not knowing if AK/RS is guilty or innocent.
You follow that examining the evidence.
What evidence do we have for guilt.
What evidence do we have for innocence.
I submit that any fair examination would be that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof.

 

[LondonJohn]

I might just also add, BTW, that Stilicho's post alluding (apparently with an entire lack of concern or human empathy) to Sollecito committing suicide in prison was absolutely disgusting and shocking, and I despise the sentiment underpinning it. I suppose I shouldn't altogether be surprised though........

 

[acbytesla]

Here's an example to illustrate the point further: No wreckage from the missing MH370 flight will ever surface in the South China Sea because MH370 did not crash in the South China Sea. In writing that sentence, I am absolutely not suggesting that there may be some hidden wreckage in the South China Sea. Instead, I am making the logical supposition that I can state that no wreckage will surface there because the aircraft did not crash there.

Jesus did indeed weep.

You lost me buddy with the MH 370 analogy. I have no idea where that plane is..do you think you do? Or are you trying to say something I just understand?

 

[LondonJohn]

You lost me buddy with the MH 370 analogy. I have no idea where that plane is..do you think you do? Or are you trying to say something I just understand?

Noooo it could have been anything; it was merely to offer another example to illustrate the logic. The point is this: I know that MH370 didn't crash in the South China Sea - therefore I can state that no wreckage from MH370 will surface in the South China Sea. In the same way, Bruce is contending that because Sollecito wasn't involved in the murder, this therefore means that nothing will ever surface showing Sollecito's involvement in the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele's alibi is, was, and always will be his computer. He does not, has not, and never will depend on convicted liar Amanda Knox to supply him with an excuse.

Raffaele's family has deployed their own formidable resources to explain to Americans why he cannot have been the murderer. Knox has carefully explained to Chris Cuomo, as of late, that she cannot be guilty since her DNA wasn't found in Meredith's room.

Guess whose DNA was found there and on Meredith's underwear? Why do you suppose that Raffaele has decided to turn on his accomplice?

I'm confused. Do you believe that Raffaele has an alibi (his computer) or not? Do you believe the members of his family who say he cannot be the murderer or not?

Are you implying that Amanda planted Raffaele's DNA on the braclasp?

You still have not answered ANY questions about Nencini's conviction. Do you believe that Amanda also planted female Y-Haplotypes on to the bra-clasp?

Your posts simply make no sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

I love how you refer to Amanda and Raffaele as "shady characters" Two students that HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG except one of them holding a noisy party where the sound carried farther than 75 feet. I admire both of these kids. They have handled themselves with grace under fire. Particularly Raffaele. Far more grace than the scumbag Mignini and that corrupt lab technician Stefanoni.

If she was in the United States, is there enough evidence that she coudl be tried and imprisoned? I am also curious how many cases would have to be reexamined in that case?

 

[Grinder]

Stilicho or should we use Gen. Stilicho,

The recent response of yours was to an older post from me, that was addressing why the kids were tried together. I pointed out that because they alibied each other it was reasonable to try them together since they had tied their fates to each other. But you and some cousin three times removed say that Raf didn't alibi Amanda and she didn't alibi him, if I can make heads and tails out of your posts.

So if they weren't alibiing each other why were they tried together? Why is it the case if one is guilty the other is guilty?

If the person walking away from the cottage is Amanda at the time Popovic saw her does that mean she was lying?

Perhaps you could also explain the penchant of PGP to make allusions to drug use in such a pejorative manner and yet nothing is said about the English girls' alcohol habits and their inability to remember when their dear friend had her last meal. Also pot is legal here and will be legal soon across the country and maybe up north as well.

Btw, I remember that you predicted that Amanda wouldn't be able to get more than $30,000 for her book. How did that work out? Does the fact that it is still selling for $18 at Amazon mean it is still being purchased?

Some uniformed person here referred to you as if you are Italian but you are from that very person's country - Canada. Didn't want you carrying that weight.

 

[acbytesla]

If she was in the United States, is there enough evidence that she coudl be tried and imprisoned? I am also curious how many cases would have to be reexamined in that case?

We have imprisoned people in the US with less DF. Take a look at the recent case of Russ Faria for example. Feel free to review the case of Timothy Masters. He was convicted of murder on pathetic evidence. The police held back evidence that pointed to another suspect. Timothy Masters was finally released after years of prison. He actually received 10 million dollars in compensation from the county and local municipality for their wrongdoing.

 

[Desert Fox]

We have imprisoned people in the US with less DF. Take a look at the recent case of Russ Faria for example. Feel free to review the case of Timothy Masters. He was convicted of murder on pathetic evidence. The police held back evidence that pointed to another suspect. Timothy Masters was finally released after years of prison. He actually received 10 million dollars in compensation from the county and local municipality for their wrongdoing.

I don't disagree with there being many absolutely horrid trials.
Still, if there was a way of prosecuting Ms Stefanoni, I would like to see it.
I want a mandate to lab techs "Do your job right."

 

[acbytesla]

I don't disagree with there being many absolutely horrid trials.
Still, if there was a way of prosecuting Ms Stefanoni, I would like to see it.
I want a mandate to lab techs "Do your job right."

Sorry DF, I didn't catch that you were referring to Stef. There have been a few lab techs sent to jail DF. But they are the exception.

 

[Desert Fox]

Sorry DF, I didn't catch that you were referring to Stef. There have been a few lab techs sent to jail DF. But they are the exception.

Yes, I know but I can wish

Wow, looks like Russ Faria is a pretty mess
http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, I know but I can wish

Wow, looks like Russ Faria is a pretty mess
http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html

It's a huge mess. Unbelievable that this guy was convicted. That jury should be embarrassed. But I'd bet that he will get a new trial and he'll be released. Unfortunately, it will probably take a few years.

 

[griffinmill]

I believe Mach addressed this at one point, but I've been reading Amanda's November 4 email and I have a few questions. This is not a "gotcha," and in no way proves guilt. I just want to know the opinion (or facts) of the innocence side.

In the email, Knox describes the blood in the bathroom as "strange" and, before leaving, feeling "uncomfortable." She calls Meredith's two phones at 12:07 (from other documentation). On one phone, "no one answered," and the other "just kept ringing" (calls which, also from other documentation, lasted 3 and 4 seconds.) AK and RS return to the cottage where a burglary is discovered and, combined with the blood, AK's alarm escalates to "banging on (Meredith's) door, "shouting her name," "panicking," an attempt to look through her window, question the downstairs neighbors, and ultimately a failed attempt to break down the door before police arrive.

1. With this level of concern, why were followup phone calls to Meredith not made? I find it even more surprising given that the first calls were made from RS' apartment. Calling the phones from the cottage would been logical to hear if they rang from behind the door.

2. Why didn't AK leave a message? I'll ignore the 3 and 4 second phone calls, but if she's concerned enough at 12:07, before the burglary is discovered, to call Filomena, then why not simply ask Meredith to call her back? Is she alledging that neither call went to voice mail? And even in the unlikely event they didn't, why not send a text?

3. Has Amanda ever explained this? Did it come up in testimony? (I sincerely don't know.)

Again, I'm not pretending that her behavior, or mistakes made, is conclusive of anything. I just find it hard to believe, no matter the level of panic, that subsequent phone calls and/or texts weren't made to Meredith, and that no message was left asking her to call.

 

[griffinmill]

Also, has anyone ever commented on this statement:

"...we are going to talk to the agency that we used to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection within the contract."

 

[griffinmill]

Duplicate

 

[acbytesla]

I believe Mach addressed this at one point, but I've been reading Amanda's November 4 email and I have a few questions. This is not a "gotcha," and in no way proves guilt. I just want to know the opinion (or facts) of the innocence side.

In the email, Knox describes the blood in the bathroom as "strange" and, before leaving, feeling "uncomfortable." She calls Meredith's two phones at 12:07 (from other documentation). On one phone, "no one answered," and the other "just kept ringing" (calls which, also from other documentation, lasted 3 and 4 seconds.) AK and RS return to the cottage where a burglary is discovered and, combined with the blood, AK's alarm escalates to "banging on (Meredith's) door, "shouting her name," "panicking," an attempt to look through her window, question the downstairs neighbors, and ultimately a failed attempt to break down the door before police arrive.

1. With this level of concern, why were followup phone calls to Meredith not made? I find it even more surprising given that the first calls were made from RS' apartment. Calling the phones from the cottage would been logical to hear if they rang from behind the door.

2. Why didn't AK leave a message? I'll ignore the 3 and 4 second phone calls, but if she's concerned enough at 12:07, before the burglary is discovered, to call Filomena, then why not simply ask Meredith to call her back? Is she alledging that neither call went to voice mail? And even in the unlikely event they didn't, why not send a text?

3. Has Amanda ever explained this? Did it come up in testimony? (I sincerely don't know.)

Again, I'm not pretending that her behavior, or mistakes made, is conclusive of anything. I just find it hard to believe, no matter the level of panic, that subsequent phone calls and/or texts weren't made to Meredith, and that no message was left asking her to call.

Well, you make a huge mistake thinking that they she has to do this. You have the benefit of hindsight. Isn't the logical thought that they might think they are overreacting? So Meredith's door is locked? Isn't it possible that Amanda might also think others are calling her like Filomena and that Meredith might be with her English friends or maybe she met some guy and spent the night there?

The problem is you KNOW that Meredith is dead behind that door so you KNOW that Amanda probably should be going crazy. I don't second guess this behavior as I haven't a clue what is going on inside Amanda's mind and I refuse to read into that.

This to me is the biggest mistake the PGP makes. They believe they can "read" nefarious behavior. "That Amanda should have been crying, that she should have been more attentive." "That Amanda shouldn't have freaked out." "That Amanda shouldn't have done yoga splits, that Amanda shouldn't have gone ta da" "That her phone calls should have lasted longer".

Most people who have cell phones answer them very quickly, so why wait twenty rings when you know that a few are just fine. That she should have "texted" Meredith...but no one else did...I would imagine that Amanda would have texted Meredith eventually...

For every time you worried about someone else's welfare, 19 out of 20 times it turned out that you were concerned for no reason.

My best answer griffin is that we don't know and we don't think it is proof of anything.

 

[Grinder]

I believe Mach addressed this at one point, but I've been reading Amanda's November 4 email and I have a few questions. This is not a "gotcha," and in no way proves guilt. I just want to know the opinion (or facts) of the innocence side.

In the email, Knox describes the blood in the bathroom as "strange" and, before leaving, feeling "uncomfortable." She calls Meredith's two phones at 12:07 (from other documentation). On one phone, "no one answered," and the other "just kept ringing" (calls which, also from other documentation, lasted 3 and 4 seconds.) AK and RS return to the cottage where a burglary is discovered and, combined with the blood, AK's alarm escalates to "banging on (Meredith's) door, "shouting her name," "panicking," an attempt to look through her window, question the downstairs neighbors, and ultimately a failed attempt to break down the door before police arrive.

This is another of the classic examples of if you believe she is guilty, boy does this look bad, while if you believe she is innocent it means nothing. Amanda has demonstrated a desire for creative writing throughout this whole time. Who shows up in court, guilty or innocent, with an "All You Need Is Love" t-shirt? Who says I don't want the face of an assassin put on me.

1. With this level of concern, why were followup phone calls to Meredith not made? I find it even more surprising given that the first calls were made from RS' apartment. Calling the phones from the cottage would been logical to hear if they rang from behind the door.

Were the 3 to 4 seconds after the connection to VM? My bills only started after connection. It would have been logical. It also would have been logical, if guilty to either go off to Gubbio and wait for a text or call or as the brilliant Anglo reiterated they could have broken the door down entered the room tried to save her and get blood on themselves and their prints all over.

2. Why didn't AK leave a message? I'll ignore the 3 and 4 second phone calls, but if she's concerned enough at 12:07, before the burglary is discovered, to call Filomena, then why not simply ask Meredith to call her back? Is she alledging that neither call went to voice mail? And even in the unlikely event they didn't, why not send a text?

As you know missed calls show up. Once again if she was guilty why didn't they do as suggested above? If she were guilty why not leave messages about how worried she was? Why not text? They had all night to plan why would they call for only 3 or 4 seconds? Don't you see that the behavior can't be viewed one way or the other?

3. Has Amanda ever explained this? Did it come up in testimony? (I sincerely don't know.)

Explained exactly what? Why she didn't break the door down? Why she didn't go to Gubbio? Why they didn't have a better coordinated alibi with times of eating and watching videos and then having sex and then smoking and a glass of wine and then sleeping...

Again, I'm not pretending that her behavior, or mistakes made, is conclusive of anything. I just find it hard to believe, no matter the level of panic, that subsequent phone calls and/or texts weren't made to Meredith, and that no message was left asking her to call.

How many calls did Filomena make? I really don't remember but I don't think she called at all and didn't text Meredith. IIRC, isn't that bizarre and she was the one that wanted the police called.

 

[griffinmill]

Another statement I find peculiar:

"Stefano’s room however, well, his bed was stripped of linens, which was odd, and the comforter he used was shoved up at the top of his bed, with blood on it. I obviously told then that the blood was defiantly out of normal and also that he usually has his bed made."

Why would AK know his bed being "stripped of linens" was "odd", or that his "bed was usually made"? I wouldn't presume to know the habits of anyone I knew for less than a month, and didnt' actually live with. It was also a holiday.

 

[Grinder]

Another statement I find peculiar:

"Stefano’s room however, well, his bed was stripped of linens, which was odd, and the comforter he used was shoved up at the top of his bed, with blood on it. I obviously told then that the blood was defiantly out of normal and also that he usually has his bed made."

Why would AK know his bed being "stripped of linens" was "odd", or that his "bed was usually made"? I wouldn't presume to know the habits of anyone I knew for less than a month, and didnt' actually live with. It was also a holiday.

I really don't see why this would in any way be incriminating. The boys hosted parties and the girls were down there frequently. But what if she actually had no idea but lied about it, why? Perhaps she realized that she had made mistakes about the phone calls and thought if she said things about bed making it would be obvious that she was a ditz so they should ignore everything she said or wrote.

But your right, I always pile all my linens on the top of the bed and mix in a little blood on holidays